techtonik> You say yourself - there is no people to review stuff, and that's a good indicator.
techtonik> ..of something wrong.
> there is something wrong, but that's not necessarily related to fun
> or not in the way you are thinking about
> writing patch is fun
> and rewarding
> reviewing them is not
> reviewing a patch is boring, takes time to do it properly, there's no glory in doing it, and if you commit it you are taking the responsability
> whereas writing a patch is easy, challenging/fun, and you can say "I did this" once it's applied
> so it's understandable that there are so many patches and so few reviewers
...
techtonik> Few key issues:
techtonik> 1. responsibility to patch author, but not the blame, help make patches better without placing additional burden
techtonik> 2. glory for reviews is solved by highscore system
techtonik> 3. proper crediting rules are required to make 1,2 possible and everyone happy
techtonik> 3.1. that means writing author, commiter and reviewers
techtonik> (see example of Chromium commits and process)
...
techtonik> We may need to maintain IPython Notebook with XML-RPC recipes to fetch the data.
> knowing what to do is different from doing it
...
techtonik> I agree, but many people ask about a plan.
techtonik> They don't even know what to do.